[Editorial] Welcome Rejection of Minimum Wage Coverage for Platform and Contract Workers; Need Tailored Rules by Occupation

It was a reasonable decision for the Minimum Wage Commission to reject a separate minimum wage scheme for contract-based workers under the minimum wage to be applied in 2027. At its 5th plenary meeting on June 11, the Commission put the proposal to a vote, but it was rejected with 11 votes in favor, 15 against, and 1 invalid vote. Accordingly, it was decided that the minimum wage to be applied in 2027 would not be separately applied to contract-based workers.

This decision does not simply turn away from protecting workers. Contract-based work, performance-based pay, and platform-based jobs are structured differently from traditional hourly wage labor. In these arrangements, workers are paid according to performance or output under a contract, and they include a wide range of occupations such as parcel delivery workers, food delivery riders, designated driver service drivers, and worksheet teachers. If the logic of an hourly minimum wage is applied to these jobs as is, multiple issues arise at once, including how to calculate working hours, how to determine waiting time, the use of multiple platforms, autonomous choice of working hours, and who bears the costs.

Above all, platform and contract-based jobs are difficult to group into a single standard employment relationship. Some people work in them full time, but many others participate as side-job workers, part-time workers, or intermittent workers, and both income structures and labor input methods vary greatly by occupation. If the minimum wage is uniformly applied while ignoring these diverse forms, the result may not be protection but a reduction in available work and higher barriers to entry. Platform operators are highly likely to pass on increased costs through higher fees, fewer dispatches, stricter screening of participants, and higher service prices. That burden will ultimately fall on consumers, small business owners, small-scale platforms, and workers seeking jobs.

It is necessary to protect vulnerable groups in the labor market. But the means of protection does not have to be compulsory minimum wage enforcement. In particular, expanding the system without first determining whether a person is a worker or an independent business operator, whether the work is full time or a side job, whether the person is exclusively tied to a specific platform, and what level of bargaining power the person actually has, could make the labor market as a whole more rigid. In areas where protection is needed, it would be more realistic to approach the issue by improving contract transparency, disclosing fee and settlement standards, limiting unilateral contract changes, strengthening industrial accident coverage and the safety net, and improving dispute mediation procedures.

Despite this rejection, related discussions are likely to be pursued again through National Assembly legislation or in conjunction with so-called “working people’s rights” discussions. But the problems of the platform economy should not be addressed solely by expanding the application of existing worker protection laws. New forms of work require new forms of regulation. What matters is a balanced approach that provides necessary protection without undermining market flexibility and individual choice.

This decision by the Minimum Wage Commission can be assessed as a minimum level of institutional prudence that takes into account the special characteristics of platform and contract-based labor. The government and the National Assembly should use this as an opportunity to focus not on an excessive expansion of the minimum wage, but on making contractual order more transparent, refining the social safety net, and designing tailored systems based on the actual conditions of each occupation.

2026. 6. 12.

Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: [논평] 플랫폼·도급제 종사자 최저임금 적용 부결 환영, 직종별 맞춤형 제도 설계가 필요하다

Author: Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

Date: 2026-06-12

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=comment&pn=1&idx=29138